Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • That is a big improvement Dave and I do agree that it s best to leave it till the last moment to prevent VCS from countering your WS. [usually using doubtful logic that can't be easily argued against in a Court atmosphere] However my first post [no. 32] about the contract is the one that really exposes Jake's flummery and calls into  question jost how close he comes to committing perjury. And that is what hopefully VCS will not want questioned by a Judge. 
    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Old Council Tax Debt - Rossendales trying to collect from friend's address (my debt).


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2159 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I have an old council tax debt, Rossendales are sending bailiffs to my friends address (I used this address several months ago to get my bank card delivered to as I was of NFA at the time).

 

My friend (whom I don't see that often) handed me a load of letters and told me that bailiffs are regularly knocking at her door demanding full payment,

 

she is worried they'll come in and take all her stuff (which surely can't be legal?).

 

The letters they've sent me are rather confusing,

they claim I owe two debts to a local council,

one for approx 120 and

another for approx 240,

 

the first few letters added £75 to both debts (to the same council, same old address),

added £235 to both debts making the total payable over £700.

 

I have nowhere near that amount lying around to pay them and get them off my friends back.

 

More recently they sent another letter regarding the 120 debt and nothing else, they seem to have removed the £235 fee and the total is less than £200

 

nothing regarding the other 240 (or whatever I apparently still owe to the same council).

 

What's the best way to get them to stop knocking at my friends house?

 

Also, as they've been handed the wrong address by MY BANK ,

 

they've been unable to contact me so how can they legally claim fees if they're knowing harassing someone who has nothing to do with the debt in question?

 

I did call them a few weeks ago when they demanded £700 they said I would have to call the "bailiff" directly and he'll want payment in full so I never bothered

 

1) I don't have it, and

2) I'm not paying a £235 fee (twice + £75*2) even if I did have it),

 

they could have phoned me but instead they'd rather send bailiffs/letters to an address I've told them I don't even live at.

 

I am not sure what my best course of action is, I would rather pay the council directly

 

I've heard they will refuse payment and tell me to deal with Rossendales,

 

I would deal with them but I am not paying a £235 fee out of principle (and certainly not twice).

 

For some confusing reason however, the most recently letter does not include the £235

 

I have no idea what's going on.

I was going to email them and ask but they'd likely take days to respond so I'd rather ask here first.

 

I would also like to know how they even got this address?

 

The only thing I used my friend's address for was to get a card delivered from my bank,

 

so my own bank just gave an address away to a 3rd party company?

How is that even legal?

Do all banks do this?

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ctax debts?

 

And no it wasnt the bank

But your info on your credit file

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry title says ctax:madgrin:

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The letters they've sent me are rather confusing,

they claim I owe two debts to a local council,

one for approx 120 and

another for approx 240,

 

the first few letters added £75 to both debts (to the same council, same old address),

added £235 to both debts making the total payable over £700.

For some confusing reason however, the most recently letter does not include the £235

More recently they sent another letter regarding the 120 debt and nothing else, they seem to have removed the £235 fee and the total is less than £200

Where the enforcement agents are acting together in respect of multiple liability orders they are supposed to minimise the £235 fees (that doesn't apply to the £75) so Rossendales have dropped on of the £235's on that basis (to be fair, when I used to deal with them for council tax purposes, they were always good in respect of spotting and removing the extra £235 where needed).

 

Also, as they've been handed the wrong address by MY BANK ,

Neither the council or enforcement agent will hand an addresses directly to a bank (or vice versa) - most likely they have come across the address via trace searches and that has details associating you with that address. Council and enforcement agencies will regularly undertake searches to find addresses - by the bank using the address there is likely a financial association which has started to show on the records that they search.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cant payers get help/time/arrangements set for non payments of ctax.

 

Some wont payers could be sent to prison.

Ctax is the only civil debt you could be jailed for for non payment.

The fees are set in legislation and are fully enforceable. It becomes part of the balance.

 

I'm not going into the ins and outs of how they traced you. You've already answered that question yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an old council tax debt, Rossendales are sending bailiffs to my friends address (I used this address several months ago to get my bank card delivered to as I was of NFA at the time).

 

The letters they've sent me are rather confusing, they claim I owe two debts to a local council, one for approx 120 and another for approx 240,

 

The first few letters added £75 to both debts (to the same council, same old address), added £235 to both debts making the total payable over £700.

 

I have nowhere near that amount lying around to pay them and get them off my friends back.

 

More recently they sent another letter regarding the 120 debt and nothing else, they seem to have removed the £235 fee and the total is less than £200

 

nothing regarding the other 240 (or whatever I apparently still owe to the same council).

 

What's the best way to get them to stop knocking at my friends house?

 

I did call them a few weeks ago when they demanded £700 they said I would have to call the "bailiff" directly and he'll want payment in full so I never bothered

 

1) I don't have it, and

2) I'm not paying a £235 fee (twice + £75*2) even if I did have it),

 

They could have phoned me but instead they'd rather send bailiffs/letters to an address I've told them I don't even live at.

 

I am not sure what my best course of action is, I would rather pay the council directly

 

I would deal with them but I am not paying a £235 fee out of principle (and certainly not twice).

 

In the first instance, I have calculated that you have only been charged ONE enforcement fee and not two and that would be correct. As you have two separate debts, then a Compliance Fee of £75 is added to each account which again is correct.

 

Paying the council direct (minus bailiff fees) will not assist you as the amount due under the warrant INCLUDES bailiff fees incurred up to the time of payment. All local authorities and enforcement companies are very familiar with the verdict under the case of Bola v Newlyn & Harrow Council. The following link is to a short thread that I started on the subject of this legal ruling. That thread, and together with another 'discussion thread the same subject have been viewed over 54,000 times'.

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?477808-Paying-the-creditor-direct-to-avoid-paying-bailiff-fees-has-landed-a-debtor-with-a-%A37-000-cost-order.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...